[fpc-devel] I've asked this before, but perhaps I wasn't specific enough that time: what do I *personally*, specifically need to do to ensure that a native Windows 64-bit build winds up on the FPC website for the next release?

[Nikolay Nikolov]

On 1/13/22 02:31, Ben Grasset via fpc-devel wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 7:38 AM Martin Frb via fpc-devel 
> <fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
>
>
>     The downloads provided by Lazarus are also NOT a "pure, native 64-bit
>     download". Only the "fpc.exe" and the non-cross "ppc64.exe" are
>     native
>     64 bit.
>
>     As I said, I do not know, what is currently provided by the Fpc
>     "combined 32-/64-bit download".
>     No Idea, if any of the fpc/ppc executable in this download are
>     already
>     64-bit.
>
>
> Every single executable that actually originates from the FPC 
> toolchain (so like `fpc.exe`, `ppcx64.exe`, `ppudump.exe`, 
> `pas2js.exe`, `h2pas.exe`, and so on) contained in the current 
> "lazarus-2.2.0-fpc-3.2.2-win64.exe" installer that the Lazarus website 
> directs to when you click "Download Now" on a system running 64-bit 
> Windows *IS* currently 64-bit. I just verified this myself. That 
> particular installer does not include any cross compilers at all, also 
> (the ones to target 32-bit Windows from 64-bit come in the smaller 
> "lazarus-2.2.0-fpc-3.2.2-cross-i386-win32-win64.exe" installer.
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 7:55 AM Tomas Hajny via fpc-devel 
> <fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
>
>     Wrong - applies only to the Win64 target, whereas e.g. 64-bit Linux
>     (supported by the same compiler targetting 64-bit code) supports
>     extended. This means that compiling source code with this compiler may
>     result in a different binary as soon as there's e.g. an extended
>     contstant included in the source code, or any compile-time
>     calculations
>     in this precision need to be performed.
>
>
> Isn't this specifically the kind of thing that the `FPC_SOFT_FPUX80` 
> define solves? FPC does not even let you go from 64-bit Windows to 
> 32-bit targets if that define isn't active IIRC, so presumably the 
> same thing could be made the case in other scenarios if it's something 
> people are widely concerned about.
>
> In any case, people who want native 64-bit Windows toolchains want 
> them pretty much exclusively for use /on /64-bit Windows to /target/ 
> 64-bit Windows, and will install any cross-compilers secondarily /if 
> /they have a use for them. The 32-bit-to-64-bit Windows FPC toolchain 
> is /not /a perfect drop-in replacement. Based on testing I did locally 
> previously, it's not as fast as the native 64-bit one,

Really? Are you sure, because I just tested make cycle on Linux and the 
results are:

i386:

real    1m1.032s
user    0m53.194s
sys    0m5.572s

x86_64:

real    1m32.651s
user    1m21.486s
sys    0m9.414s

So, the 64-bit compiler is 50% slower. This is on an AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 
12-core processor, 128 GB RAM and an SSD.

I haven't tested in Windows, but it would be very strange and suspicious 
if the results are very different. I would double check if that's really 
the case and also try some things, like disabling any antivirus programs 
that might be slowing down your computer by scanning every exe file, 
produced by the compiler.

> and additionally there are other things to keep in mind like the 4GB 
> RAM limit on 32-bit (which I have in fact seen more than one user on 
> the Lazarus forums run into with larger projects, none of whom were 
> using the 32-bit executables "on purpose").

A bug report with steps to reproduce would probably be nice.

Nikolay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/attachments/20220113/ffa5abaf/attachment.htm>